IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
1
| NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) | No. NG 262 of 1991 |
)
| GENERAL DIVISION | ) |
BETWEEN: MARY JEAN WOODS Applicant
AND : COMMONWEALTH BANK OF
AUSTRALIA & ANORRespondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
LOCKHART J.
This is a matter which was commenced in the Court by an application filed on 24 May 1991. It appears from the statement of claim that the case arises out of the granting of security in respect of a bakery business at Merimbula in New South Wales. The applicant asserts that certain of the respondents made false
representations to her which sound in damages and give rise, so
| Christie on behalf of the applicant, it is in my view a case that | is imminently appropriate to transfer to the District Court of |
| New South Wales and of course it is desirable if that course is to be taken, that it be done as soon as possible. Accordingly, the Court of its own motion orders that this matter be transfered to the District Court of New South Wales. | |
| Costs incurred thus far by both parties should be costs in the proceeding. |
it is asserted, to various forms of relief under the Trade P r a c t i c e s A c t 1974 the F a i r T r a d i n g A c t 1987 (N.S.W.). In part the applicant's case is based on an alleged contravention of S.
| 52 | of | the | Trade P r a c t i c e s A c t . |
It appears from the particulars accompanying the statement
of claim and indeed from the application itself that the damages
claimed are small. Notwithstanding what has been said by M r
I certify that this and the
preceding one (1) page are a true copy of the reasons for judgment herein of the Honourable Mr. Justice Lockhart.
Associate
Dated: 5 July 1991
| Solicitors for the Applicant : | A.J. Clark & Filmer |
(M. Christie appearing)
| Solicitors for the Respondent : | L.E. Taylor (Mr Robinson appearing) |
| Date of Hearing | 5 July 1991 |
| Date of Judgment | 5 July 1991 |
- AGLC
- Woods v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1991] FCA 393
- Case
- [1991] FCA 393
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether the case was appropriately filed in the Federal Court or if it should be transferred to another jurisdiction. This decision was influenced by the nature and scope of the claims, as well as the monetary damages sought. The primary legal issue was whether the case should remain in the Federal Court or be transferred to the District Court of New South Wales due to the relatively small amount of damages claimed and the applicability of state-level statutes.
Justice Lockhart ruled that the case was more appropriately suited for the District Court of New South Wales. The decision to transfer was based on the imminent appropriateness of the case for that court and the desirability of expediting the transfer. Consequently, the court ordered the transfer of the matter to the District Court of New South Wales and directed that the costs incurred by both parties thus far should be considered costs in the proceeding.
Justice Lockhart's judgment was rendered on July 5, 1991, with the case being transferred to the District Court of New South Wales. The decision also included an order for the costs incurred by both parties to be treated as costs in the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.